THE PROS AND CONS OF THE UNITARY PATENT JURISDICTION REPORT: SWEDEN
Fenix Legal
Te unitary patent is one of the oldest topics of discussion within the EU, starting in the early 1970s. Te creation of the European Patent Office (EPO) in 1977 was a small step on the right path. However, you still had to translate the patent application into the languages of the country of interest, pay for validation and, in cases of infringement, handle the dispute in national courts. On December 10, 2012, 24 EU member states (including Sweden)
agreed to create the unitary patent system. It was expected to come into force in 2014 together with the Unified Patent Court (UPC). As we know, Spain and Italy chose to remain outside the system, and although the regime can start soon, we have to wait a bit longer for the UPC.
Te Swedish member of
the European Parliament, Cecilia Wikström,
was actively involved in the negotiations that led to the 2012 decision. “A common European patent is a key to strengthening Europe’s competitiveness in a globalised world. We must be able to compete with the US, Japan and other developed countries,” she said in an interview with the trade magazine Entreprenör just aſter the agreement was signed. She expects an 80% reduction in the cost of protecting patents once the system is working. In 2014, the Swedish government submitted a referral to the Council
on Legislation (Lagrådet) for adapting Swedish law concerning unitary patent protection within EU. A part of this is that although an applicant that chooses to validate a European patent in Sweden should still file a Swedish translation of the patent’s claims, the Swedish translation will no longer have any legal effect. For national Swedish patent applications with a filing date of July 1, 2014 or later, the applicant can now both file and have the patent granted in English. Alexander Ramsay, vice chairman of
the preparatory committee
dealing with the establishment of the UPC, is another Swedish specialist in this area. In an article published 2014 in legal science journal Svensk Juristtidning, Ramsay replied to some questions raised by Swedish industry that: • Te new system is not harmful for countries with a low level of patent activity;
• Te UPC promotes unity, not ‘forum shopping’; • Te system does not increase complexity; and • Te UPC will not mean Europe becomes a playground for ‘patent trolls’. On March 4, 2014, Sweden, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were the
first countries to agree on a regional division of the upcoming UPC. Denmark and Finland have chosen to not join this regional division. Tis of course is a weakness and may cause problems regarding disputes in the Scandinavian market.
86 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015
“SWEDISH INVENTORS HAVE COMMENTED ESPECIALLY THAT THE NEW SYSTEM WILL INCREASE THEIR CHANCES OF COMPETING WITH US AND ASIAN COMPANIES.”
In 2014, the total number of granted patents at the EPO increased by 3.1% to more than 274,000, which is a new record level. Swedish companies accounted for 5,132 of those patents. Ericsson was the most active, filing 1,345 patent applications to the EPO, followed by SKF, Electrolux, Scania, Volvo Cars and Sandvik. However, less than 20% of all European patents are normally validated in Sweden. Te two main questions are related to the costs and legal proceedings
of the UPC. For companies that already want full EU protection, the reduction of costs will be essential. Tis is important for large Swedish companies, but even more for small to medium-sized enterprises. Swedish inventors have commented especially that the new system will increase their chances of competing with US and Asian companies. For those companies that still have limited budgets, using the unitary
patent system in combination with licensing agreements will provide new business possibilities. Of course, the risk is that if you lose in a court proceeding, the full unitary patent will fall. One conclusion of assessing the pros and cons for Swedish industry
is that inventors probably will, aſter all, wait before using the full system. Te main reason for that is to see how the upcoming UPC will work out. But don’t forget to plan today.
Maria Zamkova is chief executive of Fenix Legal. She can be contacted at:
maria.zamkova@
fenixlegal.eu
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100